Theory

[somes]

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_new_games_journalism/

The piece states, implicitly, that movies are more interesting things than games.

But since a movie can obviously be contained in a game, isn't the game a larger, more complex, and therefore more interesting thing?

[burnsro]

A movie being contained in a game made me think of Street Fighter Anniversary Collection, but that's obviously not what you are talking about.

If you are talking about the story in games told through cutscenes then I don't think that really qualifies as better. I wouldn't mind examples and you explaining your view further though.

[icycalm]

He hasn't offered a view. He's just posing a question which arises logically from my writings (see also this).

It is indeed a very smart question!

I plan to write an article on this subject at some point. It will be called "Set Theory". The idea is that you can easily prove that, theoretically, games are greater than anything else, by pointing out that a game can be reduced to anything else (a movie, a book, a piece of music). In mathematical terms, movies, books and music are subsets of electronic games. This conclusion leads us to some fairly complex consequences, which I am dealing with in the book I am writing at the moment.

But back to the question.

The piece states, implicitly, that movies are more interesting things than games.

Nope, it doesn't. This "implicitly" is merely your interpretation, and as it happens a mistaken one. In fact the opposite is true: electronic games, as a concept, are more interesting than movies -- potentially more interesting, as I will easily show with my Set Theory article. But this potential has not yet been realized. So even though the concept 'electronic game' is more interesting than the concept 'movie', the actual games that we have in our hands to review are less interesting than the actual movies. Take another look at what I explicitly stated:

None of these people possess the minimum required amount of intelligence to grasp the simple fact that some subjects are by definition more interesting than others, and therefore essays dealing with these subjects will also be more interesting.

So the subject of Pac-Man is less interesting than the subject of, say, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. The subject of BioShock is less interesting (infinitely less interesting!) than the subject of, for example, Groundhog Day. In other words the complexity of these games (as of all currently-exisiting games), is infinitely lower than the complexity of these movies (as of most movies).

Don't become confused by words here! The word 'complexity' has a different meaning depending on whether it's being employed in the context of games or movies. In games, complexity is a measure of the depth of a game's possibility space. In movies, complexity is a measure of the depth of the social/political/cultural themes which a movie explores, and the extent of this exploration. When you review something like Pac-Man or BioShock you are analyzing a pretty shallow object, which is why it would be hard to justifiably devote more than a page to it, and to use complex sentence structures and obscure vocabulary. The opposite is true when you review something like Apocalypse Now or, say, Broken Flowers. In this case we are dealing with HUMAN BEINGS, with love and war -- with all the facets of the human condition. Reviewing such movies is in effect the same as writing philosophy -- the concepts involved are extremely intricate, and therefore the language you need to use in order to reflect them and analyze them must also oftentimes be extremely intricate. But this intricacy does not exist in a comedy puppet show screensaver like, say, Lost Odyssey. That's why whoever tries to analyze something like Lost Odyssey using language similar to that which one would use to analyze Citizen Kane comes off as a pretentious dick.

The object to be analyzed determines the level of the analysis, after all, and not the other way round.

As for whether games will ever be created which will warrant in-depth analysis on a par with movies, well, I've sort of talked a little bit about this already:

I forgot the artfags in the audience. I am sure that by now they will have hit the roof so many times, that they are either dead (in which case good riddance!) or have broken through the roof and are languishing in jail. But anyway, I will respond to their concerns regarding the coming videogames, those far off mirages that will deliver unto us entire universes of moral choices and dilemmas, experiences equal in scope and magnitude and emotional impact to the stories of the best novels, plays and movies the world has yet seen.

So what about all those games?

Well...

Well!

Don't worry -- we'll talk about them when they get here.

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/sequel_the_videogame/

Note that the above passage is deeply sarcastic. It's not a matter of "when" these games will get here -- we still have to figure out "if" they will ever get here (that's in fact partly what my book will be about).

[icycalm]

Oh, and as for this passage:

These kids are so dumb that they have yet to figure out that a review of a videogame, the vast majority of which are nothing more than childish pastimes, could not possibly equal in worth the review of a film, the vast majority of which deal in some way with the human condition.

I can see how this would also seem to imply that games are worth less than movies, but in fact all it states is that current games are worth less than movies -- see underlined part.

[somes]

I see. I sort of thought that's what you were getting at. The particular games that exist versus the particular movies, not the idea of the game itself versus the idea of film.

[Bradford]

After reading the article, which I quite enjoyed, I find myself still considering it several days later. For me, the article lead directly to a certain amount of self-analysis. I have been asking myself, what role do videogames have in my life? I'm getting a little older, I'm married, have a job, etc..., do I artificially inflate the importance of my hobbies to avoid guilt? I would like to think I do not, but I can only strive for balance between work, play, responsibility, and relaxation in my life.

But that line of questioning led me to another. What makes videogames more childish than other hobbies in the first place? Grown men don't feel childish for sitting on the couch for 10 hours at at time to watch sports (do they?), and tney certainly don't feel childish for playing sports. What makes an electronic game different (in terms of maturity) from a physical one? It can't be the subject matter alone (can it?), which in videogames ranges from mushroom kingdoms (Mario) to murder simulators (Hitman).

Is it possible that it is gamers themselves are to blame? Certainly the image of the stereotypical gamer (video, pen & paper, tabletop, or otherwise) does not engender respect for one's maturity or pasttime. So I guess that is my final question, why is playing Street Fighter more childish than playing, say, tennis? Is it only because Street Fighter has cartoon characters in it? Is it because of a stigma attached to fantasy and escapism (I don't think so; novels aren't automatically branded as immature)? Or is it just that people who play sports tend to be more fit, healthy, and therefore attractive, and can kick your ass if you call them immature? Thoughts? Anybody?

[icycalm]

These are the sorts of questions which, if you posed them on any game forum, would net you a flood of silly, or terribly cliché, or ego-inflating, self-congratulatory responses. I seriously doubt any member of this forum could give you anything beyond that, so I am just going to give you the answer myself.

The problem is with your understanding of what consitutes a "mature" human being. What constitutes a mature human being in the grand sense (i.e. philosophically, not merely biologically) is that the mature human being does not expect to have its maturity conferred on it by an outside agency. In this sense, the vast majority of human beings around us are nowhere near maturity, because their sense of maturity comes from the herd and not from within. Their "maturity" is nothing more than yet another object in Baudrillard's "System of Objects", which they acquire by acquiring certain objects which society has imbued with its (in fact very shallow, very childish!) interpretation of maturity. What objects are these? But of course the car, the house, the spouse, the children, the job, etc. etc.

The truth of all the above is embarassingly evident in your post. You are indeed not mature, but not because you play games -- but because you even feel the need to raise the question of your maturity!

do I artificially inflate the importance of my hobbies to avoid guilt?

I am sure you do, as does pretty much everyone who has a bad conscience about playing games. Getting rid of this bad conscience (this "herd insinct in the individual") is what will lead you closer to maturity, and not simply changing hobbies.

The mature human being is effectively the same as Nietzsche's "free spirit" or "noble spirit". From Beyond Good and Evil (1886):


-What is noble? What does the word 'noble' mean to us today? What, beneath this heavy, overcast sky, of the beginning of the rule of the rabble which makes everything leaden and opaque, betrays and makes evident the noble human being? -- It is not his actions which reveal him -- actions are always ambiguous, always unfathomable --; neither is it his 'works'. One finds today among artists and scholars sufficient who reveal by their works that they are driven by a profound desire for the noble: but precisely this need for the noble is fundamentally different from the needs of the noble soul itself, and in fact an eloquent and dangerous sign of its lack. It is not the works, it is the faith which is decisive here, which determines the order of rank here, to employ an old religious formula in a new and deeper sense: some fundamental certainty which a noble soul possesses in regard to itself, something which may not be sought or found and perhaps may not be lost either. -- The noble soul has reverence for itself. --

[icycalm]

Also!

It can't be the subject matter alone (can it?), which in videogames ranges from mushroom kingdoms (Mario) to murder simulators (Hitman).

This is a pretty huge mistake. Very common though. Mario and Hitman do not really have different "subject matters". In fact, they do not have subject matters period -- just as basketball and volleyball do not have subject matters. Hitman is not a murder simulator. You can replace all human beings with polar bears and all weapons with frisbies and all blood with, say, some form of green goo, and it will still be essentially the same game -- an action game, not very different in essence from, say, darts.

The only games with "subject matters" are the ones that no one has yet really figured out how to make. It is the games with INTERACTIVE PLOTLINES. The REAL computer role-playing games, a few of which, when they arrive, it will perhaps be appropriate to analyze using the kind of language that the best movie critics use.

[Bradford]

The truth of all the above is embarassingly evident in your post. You are indeed not mature, but not because you play games -- but because you even feel the need to raise the question of your maturity!

I can accept that as the truth; your point is that a mature person doesn't need to ask for or otherwise seek validation, he just is. I appreciate the direct reply.

This is a pretty huge mistake. Very common though. Mario and Hitman do not really have different "subject matters". In fact, they do not have subject matters period -- just as basketball and volleyball do not have subject matters. Hitman is not a murder simulator. You can replace all human beings with polar bears and all weapons with frisbies and all blood with, say, some form of green goo, and it will still be essentially the same game -- an action game, not very different in essence from, say, darts.

I appreciate your point with respect to my use of the term "subject matter." One of the things I enjoy the most about your writing is consistency and precision with respect to terminology, something I strive for in my writing, so by treating it as a semantic point I do not mean to diminish its significance. That said, I would like to reiterate the question, with the term "subject matter" replaced with whatever you would deem an appropriate subsitute. Accoutrement, perhaps?

What is the genesis of the perception that Street Fighter is a childish game, and tennis is not? Is it the cartoonish depictions that comprise the visual trappings of Street Fighter? Is it because Street Fighter is perceived as a form of fantasy escapism, while grown-ups only deal with "real life" (whatever that is)? Or is it because gamers perceive themselves as childish (which I think flows logically from your and Nietzsche's point)? ...which rather neatly comes full circle to the point above about myself looking for validation, and to the article addressing the need of game reviewers to validate what they do, if indeed that is the reason.

[icycalm]

I appreciate your point with respect to my use of the term "subject matter." One of the things I enjoy the most about your writing is consistency and precision with respect to terminology

This is an absolute necessity when you are trying to get to the bottom of complex issues (and even many shallow ones!). Words are signs denoting concepts; sometimes very vague, very ambiguous concepts -- and sometimes even concepts which don't exist! If you are not careful with your definitions, therefore, you often end up being led astray by mere words or grammatical conventions. This is another point -- and a very decisive one! -- against the New Games Journalists, who have little regard for the meaning of words, and who just simply pick the most pompous-sounding ones they can find, throw them in a paragraph, stir and serve. Witness with what carelessness they use the word 'art', for example, one of the most treacherous words ever invented. But who has the time to sit and mull over definitions when there are 10-page reviews and articles to be written, deadlines to be met, etc. etc.

Hence the fact that whenever a mildly complex issue is touched upon no one seems to be able to make heads or tails of it. Everyone ends up offering his own stupid and nonsensical "analysis"; all these analyses end up being irreconcilable, because they are nonsensical; so what they do is they put their differences down to difference of opinion, shake hands and go home, none the wiser.

That said, I would like to reiterate the question, with the term "subject matter" replaced with whatever you would deem an appropriate subsitute. Accoutrement, perhaps?

I had to look this word up! Is this what you meant?

An accessory item of equipment

If so, I can't see what that has to do with the themes of Mario and Hitman. Because that's what the plumbers and mushrooms in Mario and the gore in Hitman are -- themes. A skin. Atmosphere. Things which, when you get right down to it, have as much to do with the games themselves as the different Winamp skins have to do with the functions of Winamp (or any other piece of software which allows you to mess around with its look -- Windows Vista, for example).

What is the genesis of the perception that Street Fighter is a childish game, and tennis is not? Is it the cartoonish depictions that comprise the visual trappings of Street Fighter? Is it because Street Fighter is perceived as a form of fantasy escapism, while grown-ups only deal with "real life" (whatever that is)?

Obviously the origin of the perception varies from group to group, but generally speaking, from the point of view of society (i.e. the herd), videogames are deemed childish because they are games, and games are -- and have always been -- meant for children. So yes, children are supposed to be concerned with games and adults with real life.

Obviously, when people start making money from playing games (NBA, NFL, etc.), or making money from making games (Electronic Arts, Activision, etc.), then these activities count as "real life" from the point of view of the herd/society. In fact the only way to separate real life from games nowadays is to ask, "Is he making money doing this?". If the answer is yes then the activity counts as real life.

But these are all ancillary issues, because who cares what the herd thinks anyway? They are fucking morons, and everything that comes out of their mouths is hardly more interesting than the bleating of sheep or the barking of dogs. The important issue here is to answer the question "What is a game?". Because if professional basketball still counts as a game (as it obviously does) someone could assert that running a business is a game. Or seducing a woman. Or earning a university degree. Etc, etc. And then we are back to square one, because if everything is a game then nothing is a game anymore, and the word itself is meaningless.

So the most fundamental questions regarding games cannot be answered until you have a rock-solid definition. And no one has that except me, but I am saving it for my book ;)

[somes]

A portion of the "aesthetic phenomenon" with rules that are entirely articulated, and used for pleasure...

[Bradford]

I had to look this word up! Is this what you meant?

An accessory item of equipment

Really, I was just trying to be funny. It's one of those words that is just ... fun. The definition of accoutrement that I was using was:

"3. an identifying and often superficial characteristic or device . . . ,"

available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accoutrement.

Edit: Thank you for the detailed reply, by the way. I don't mean to derail discussion from the primary thrust of your article, which was more nuanced than the sub-topic I've been raising questions on. I hope to have more insightful questions to ask once I've had a few more days to reread and digest it.

[icycalm]

A portion of the "aesthetic phenomenon" with rules that are entirely articulated, and used for pleasure...

I see you paid attention to my recent copy-pasting antics. Nice try, but I am not going to give this particular secret away. If you want to start a new thread and attempt to come up with a definition be my guest, but I am not going to help.

Note that without a solid grounding in philosophy your chances of success are zero (what is an "aesthetic phenomenon"?, what does "entirely articulated" mean?, what is "pleasure"?).

[somes]

Yes, as an outsider to this discourse, I truly have no chance!

[icycalm]

No idea if you are trying to be sarcastic; I was just telling you what I honestly think is the case. It took me four years of relentless questioning to solve this problem. Really, I was obsessed with it; can't tell you how many nights' sleep I've lost thinking about it. And when all is said and done, if I hadn't read all of Nietzsche, Wittgenstein and Baudrillard I wouldn't have accomplished anything.

Wittgenstein himself tried to solve it, but only managed to come up with a half-assed compromise (the theory of "family resemblances").

But they didn't have videogames back then, you see. It really helps a lot having an understanding of how videogames work. That's one thing all philosophers (even modern ones) lack.

Gamers, on the on the other hand, know all about games but nothing about philosophy.

So, basically, no one is going to understand what I'll be saying. lol

[somes]

No sarcasm here, sir.

I am not a philosophy student, a video game student, or really any particular sort of student at all. So, I completely understand what you are saying, and agree!

PS Will your book cost more than 14.99?

[icycalm]

I presume you mean USD, in which case yes. The exact cost will depend on the quality of the paper/binding etc., which hasn't been decided yet, but $16 or so is the absolute minimum.

It's funny how gamers suddenly become stingy when it comes to anything except games. We happily spend $60 on some piece of shit videogame, but a book that costs $30 is suddenly deemed expensive, and ends up on a wishlist. No wonder then we are so stupid!

[Bradford]

Well, it depends. How many gamerpoints will I get for reading it?

[icycalm]

lol, yeah. That about sums it up really.

[somes]

Ha! I do not "happily" spend $60 on a poor videogame.

And furthermore, I even buy the Oprah versions of some books. How's that for stingy!

[JoshF]

Did you check who is linking to the article yet?

[icycalm]

A couple of small forums, and they are not saying anything interesting. Quelle surprise!

[icycalm]

I added a second Nietzschean quote to the beginning of the article; a very relevant one:

Deep explanations. -- He who explains a passage in an author "more deeply" than the passage was meant has not explained the author but obscured him.

Also, here's a relevant passage from Kael's essay which I just now posted on the frontpage:

What the Cambridge boy is doing is a more devious form of that elevating and falsifying of people who talk about Loren as a great actress instead of as a gorgeous, funny woman. Trash doesn’t belong to the academic tradition, and that’s part of the fun of trash — that you know (or should know) that you don’t have to take it seriously, that it was never meant to be anymore than frivolous and trifling and entertaining.

http://insomnia.ac/essays/trash_art_and_the_movies/

Essentially, the same sentiments that I express in the article in several places, with Eric-Jon Waugh, Tim Rogers and all the other miseducated new games journalists playing the role of Kael's "Cambridge boy".

[icycalm]

Bad writers necessary -- There will always have to be bad writers, for they answer to the taste of the immature, undeveloped age-group; these have their requirements as well as do the mature. If human life were longer, the number of mature individuals would preponderate or at least be equal to that of the immature; as things are, however, most by far die too young, that is to say there are always many more undeveloped intellects with bad taste. These, moreover, desire that their requirements be satisfied with the greater vehemence of youth, and they demand bad authors and get them.

[icycalm]

New Games Journalism, Arfagotry and Pseudo-intellectualism in a nutshell:

http://www.gamersquarter.com/forums/vie ... 8395#78395

My only problem with it is that many of the opinions feels ingenuine, like rather than being your actual opinion they're more like hooks that would allow you to write good articles. This may or may not be the case, but the feeling is something that kind of irks me.

Interesting comment!

All of the feelings are genuine! But I only wrote them down if I thought they'd make a good article. Weird sort of catch-22 there, I guess. But I'll see about maybe trying to seem more heartfelt in future, perhaps.

He will try to "seem" more heartfelt in the future, lol.

To SEEM for christ's sakes!